Wireless carriers, US government join forces to lower phone theft

Major wireless carriers in the US are teaming up with the federal government …

Major US wireless providers—Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile—are joining forces with the US government in an effort to combat phone theft. The Wall Street Journal reports the wireless companies will build and maintain a centralized database to track phones reported as lost or stolen. Phones on the list will then be denied voice and data service. Ideally, this makes the stolen phone virtually useless and drastically reduces resale value.

Carriers will start their own databases within six months. Those will then be combined into a centralized list over the following 18 months. Small regional wireless carriers are expected to join the initiative within two years. And as part of the plan, all carriers will introduce initiatives to encourage password protection among phone users.

Similar databases are already in-use in countries such as the UK, Germany, France, and Australia. Overall, these countries haven't seen crime completely stopped, but the number of incidents has lowered. In the US, electronics have recently begun surpassing cash as the most stolen property. Reports from The New York Daily News and San Francisco Chronicle last fall showed some startling statistics. In New York City, half of the city's nearly 16,000 robberies in the first 10 months of 2011 were gadget related (mostly phones). In San Francisco, 40 cellphone muggings were reported in November alone.

Wait wait wait, so the government is creating a better structure with more ability to track and shut off your phone remotely? Ya the government really cares about your lost phones, this is such a good idea. NOT!

Not to downplay the potential good this will do, but let's not lose perspective: the carriers are only doing this because stolen phones cost them money in terms of unpaid service taken by thieves, until the phone is actually reported lost or stolen.

Not to downplay the potential good this will do, but let's not lose perspective: the carriers are only doing this because stolen phones cost them money in terms of unpaid service taken by thieves, until the phone is actually reported lost or stolen.

Carriers were against doing this because stolen phones were activated on their network, making them money. A bricked phone can't have service attached to it.

First of all: REALLY?!?! Of all the issues in the wireless game, it's lost phones that we need government intervention for?!

And second of all: What. The. HELL does any government need a centralized list of mobile phones for?! It's a business transaction between customer and service provider and is of NO concern of any public entity.

As somebody who actually does support for Sprint, this is great... but it's not perfect. The problem with this is that a clever thief can steal an iPhone, and then sell it to some dumb schmuck. If that guy isn't smart enough to make sure the phone's clean before buying it, then you end up with the thief screwing over two people--the person who lost the phone (and reported it stolen) and the poor guy who bought the phone without realizing it was essentially a $200 paperweight.

Ideally, there should be two ways to restrict service. A silent one that works the way it does now, and one that loudly proclaims "HEY THIS PHONE IS LOST, RETURN IT TO A STORE PLZ." Preferably with a buzzer that goes off every few minutes and a notification that can't be dismissed.

Speaking as a person who already lives in a country that does this - it's about bloody time. Among the reason's it isn't 100% effective while the phone is useless in Australia, it isn't useless in any country that doesn't have this list. So, the stolen phones are re-sold overseas. Another issue is some phones allow their IMEI to be re-programmed. Or so people claim.

squarecat wrote:

And second of all: What. The. HELL does any government need a centralized list of mobile phones for?! It's a business transaction between customer and service provider and is of NO concern of any public entity.

It's actually worse than that. If they do it properly not only will your government have this list, they will give it away to many others around the planet. Maybe you should spent the rest of your like hiding under a rock.

BTW, the reason they give it to the government is it is a law enforcement issue. When the police come across a cache of questionable goods it is nice to know what is stolen and what wasn't. In Australia it's not just the police. There is a public web site joe blow citizen can use to check for stolen phones: http://www.amta.org.au/pages/amta/Check ... ur.Handset

And second of all: What. The. HELL does any government need a centralized list of mobile phones for?! It's a business transaction between customer and service provider and is of NO concern of any public entity.

Centralized list of stolen mobile phones. The GSM standard has had support for blacklisting IMEIs since the beginning. I always wondered why the U.S. carriers never bothered to take advantage of this feature before now.

ahmerali wrote:

Not to downplay the potential good this will do, but let's not lose perspective: the carriers are only doing this because stolen phones cost them money in terms of unpaid service taken by thieves, until the phone is actually reported lost or stolen.

That argument doesn't actually make sense. Until the phone has been reported lost or stolen, it can't be blacklisted, so any services used by the thieves before the owner reports the phone stolen will have to be paid by someone.

The only difference is that now the IMEI will be blacklisted in addition to deactivating the account associated with the SIM card, so the thief can't stick in a different SIM card and reuse the phone. In the CDMA world, I'm surprised that Verizon and Sprint aren't already checking for stolen equipment, since someone has to reprogram the phone to attach it to a different account. It sounds like they didn't have a database of MEIDs of stolen CDMA phones either.

Wait wait wait, so the government is creating a better structure with more ability to track and shut off your phone remotely? Ya the government really cares about your lost phones, this is such a good idea. NOT!

No, what they are doing is extending the concept of EIR that is built into the GSM standard into the CMDA networks. It is just a list of stolen imeis in the case of gsm phones and the celular centrals before switching the call check that list to see if your phone is listed as stolen or not. There is no more tracking that the one currently in place.

Puma720 wrote:

Centralized list of stolen mobile phones. The GSM standard has had support for blacklisting IMEIs since the beginning. I always wondered why the U.S. carriers never bothered to take advantage of this feature before now

It's two fold, first you lost customers if you block stolen phones, secondly you create support nightmares when the thieves start reflashing the phones imeis and you end blocking 20 phones just because one was stolen but all of them shared the same imei.

The only reason they are doing this is cause they know if they don't the government will come up with something that will potentially be more expensive. By starting this system up before the gov steps in they are trying to avoid any kind of oversight.

It has only taken the US 10 years to implement what is already done in most every first world nation on the planet. Bravo American companies. Your tireless fight to protect the consumer and keep up with the rest of the world is truly outstanding.

My (perhaps overly) cynical and more nuanced view is the government's interest in this initiative is controlling access to mobile phones. This actually dovetails quite nicely with the interest in ending the sale of anonymous prepaid phones (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... phones.ars).

If you are a person interested in maintaining anonymity, for whatever reason, then a black market phone might be just what you need. Obviously it's difficult for me to defend people using *stolen* phones, but I have difficulty believing the government is motivated by concern for consumers, even if that is a product.

My (perhaps overly) cynical and more nuanced view is the government's interest in this initiative is controlling access to mobile phones. This actually dovetails quite nicely with the interest in ending the sale of anonymous prepaid phones (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... phones.ars).

If you are a person interested in maintaining anonymity, for whatever reason, then a black market phone might be just what you need. Obviously it's difficult for me to defend people using *stolen* phones, but I have difficulty believing the government is motivated by concern for consumers, even if that is a product.

Don't worry, the prevalence of relatively poor people lacking credit cards or other methods of purchase insurance will ensure pay as you go burners stay around for awhile. Requiring a state ID to make the purchase would probably run afoul of 1st Amendment issues for whatever that is worth.

The amount of you saying "about damn time" to a formalized, shared database tracking the exact location of what is becoming every citizens primary computing device is utterly stunning.

Theft doesn't justify the blatant collusing and tracking of every citizen by carriers and government.This should be data released to law enforcement on a case by case basis, not free default.

The ghost of privacy is weeping for you all.

When the blood log-in from Gattaca hits you'll all probably cheer that it keeps you from needing keys or taking out a paper ID. Unless Comcast wants to throttle BitTorrent or somethig, then you'll whine.

You may as well all be named Helen Lovejoy. As long as its in the hope of helping the children, it doesn't matter what terrible side effects are down the line does it?

If that guy isn't smart enough to make sure the phone's clean before buying it, then you end up with the thief screwing over two people--the person who lost the phone (and reported it stolen) and the poor guy who bought the phone without realizing it was essentially a $200 paperweight.

My initial reaction:1) What happens with all the current phones out there that have been living happy lives?2) How do I check if the phone is clean? Does J. Q. Public get a way to check before purchase, ideally without having the phone in hand (Ebay!)?3) What happens if the phone gets reported stolen/lost after I checked and then purchased the phone?

It has only taken the US 10 years to implement what is already done in most every first world nation on the planet. Bravo American companies. Your tireless fight to protect the consumer and keep up with the rest of the world is truly outstanding.

Don't delude yourself. Companies have already been blocking stolen phones here for years. The problem is lack of enforcement outside of the majors. Cricket, MetroPCS, etc are more than happy to activate stolen phones.

Secondly, this will most likely only reduce phone theft for personal use. There will be suckers for years to come who will be unaware that this list even exists and will continue to be sold a product they can't use.

It's not about the blacklist or phone theft is it though? You just found an opportunity to be an arrogant ass and seized it.

Such a shame that a website with such great in depth articles has a comment section which appears to be competing with Engadget on who can be worst.

First of all: REALLY?!?! Of all the issues in the wireless game, it's lost phones that we need government intervention for?!

And second of all: What. The. HELL does any government need a centralized list of mobile phones for?! It's a business transaction between customer and service provider and is of NO concern of any public entity.

Pretty much.This is a slippery slope, and given the late track of our government seems like another measure of control, should that control be needed.This is scary, because means of control are being placed all over our lives. Should something ever go the way "the man" decides unworthy, all they have to do is press a button to shut down any dissent.

The amount of you saying "about damn time" to a formalized, shared database tracking the exact location of what is becoming every citizens primary computing device is utterly stunning.

Except of course the IMEI blacklist is no such thing. It doesnt track a single damned thing. It just is a big list of IMEIs, no further information. If a phone attempts to connect to the network its IMEI is compared to the black list... If its present, the session is rejected.

I'm into civil liberties, but save your fear mongering for the real threats.

The amount of you saying "about damn time" to a formalized, shared database tracking the exact location of what is becoming every citizens primary computing device is utterly stunning.

Except of course the IMEI blacklist is no such thing. It doesnt track a single damned thing. It just is a big list of IMEIs, no further information. If a phone attempts to connect to the network its IMEI is compared to the black list... If its present, the session is rejected.

I'm into civil liberties, but save your fear mongering for the real threats.

Indeed.

Carriers already have the IMEIs. They have to store them for their networks to function.

So what if that means they can tell you own an iPhone 4S? (or as is actually the case, previously owned!) - big whoop. You've probably told the police that it's been stolen anyway.

It doesn't mean that they can track where you are or who you're calling (without using existing legal avenues to do that).

This is scary, because means of control are being placed all over our lives. Should something ever go the way "the man" decides unworthy, all they have to do is press a button to shut down any dissent.

Yup, soon thieves everywhere will be shut down by the man, at the push of a button. Do we have more tinfoil than usual in here, or is reading comprehension simply dipping?

The amount of you saying "about damn time" to a formalized, shared database tracking the exact location of what is becoming every citizens primary computing device is utterly stunning.

Theft doesn't justify the blatant collusing and tracking of every citizen by carriers and government.This should be data released to law enforcement on a case by case basis, not free default.

The ghost of privacy is weeping for you all.

When the blood log-in from Gattaca hits you'll all probably cheer that it keeps you from needing keys or taking out a paper ID. Unless Comcast wants to throttle BitTorrent or somethig, then you'll whine.

You may as well all be named Helen Lovejoy. As long as its in the hope of helping the children, it doesn't matter what terrible side effects are down the line does it?

What? Do you know what the database of this kind have in the whole world? just the Imei of the phone and the status. Most only have the just the imei of the phones previously reported as stolen, so if you phone is clear it isn't even in the database. Also, if the carrier wants to track you, they already can, all of the events that happen in the cellular network are recorded so they can bill you. And in that logs that they use for billing is the code of the tower that answered your event. So you are already being tracked, this DB is only going to have the IMEI and the phone statues because that's what the standard defines.

EDIT:Just to add a little more, do you know how a call gets to you? It end in your phone because the carrier knows closer to which tower you are the whole time. I believe that you guys just got a gut reaction to the word track without first reading the whole thing to see that the only thing new that is being tracked is a new value next to your phone data that says if that phone is stolen or not.